“Whether it’s good for our country or bad for out country, short term, it had to be done,” he said, repeating that “whether it’s good or bad, short-term, is irrelevant.”Sign in or Subscribe to view this content.

President Donald Trump has spent days arguing that recession fears are a media construct meant to take him down. His aides have told us the “fundamentals of our economy are very strong” and that there is no recession on the way. They even falsely denied he’s looking at quick fixes (such as a payroll tax cut) to ward off economic pain.

But on Tuesday, Trump sang a much different tune. Rather than play off the idea of a downturn, Trump leaned into it – and even suggested a short-term recession might simply be the cost of waging his much-needed trade war with China.

After getting a question about the trade war, Trump launched into an impassioned defense. At one point, he entertained the idea that there might be a two-month recession or something similar, but argued the trade war had to be done regardless.

“I am doing this whether it’s good or bad for your statement about, ‘Oh, will we fall into a recession for two months?’ The fact is, somebody had to take China on,” Trump said.

“Whether it’s good for our country or bad for out country, short term, it had to be done,” he said, repeating that “whether it’s good or bad, short-term, is irrelevant.”

He suggested he was doing something his predecessors should have done. “My life would be a lot easier if I hadn’t taken China on. But I like doing it because I have to do it,” he said, maintaining that the stock market could be 10,000 points higher if he hadn’t.

“Somebody had to take on what China was doing to the United States economically,” he said. “It should have been done by previous presidents.”

A couple points: First, the entire monologue undercuts Trump’s regular assurances that the trade war isn’t hurting the economy. Trump has frequently said (wrongly) that China pays for the tariffs, and his administration has argued that the impacts are negligible – whether on consumer prices, on the stock market or with a potential downturn. Trump has argued that the Federal Reserve is to blame. “China is not our problem, though Hong Kong is not helping,” Trump tweeted last week. “Our problem is with the Fed. Raised too much & too fast. Now too slow to cut.” Now Trump says the stock market could be 10,000 points higher if he didn’t do this? That’s quite an admission.

The fact that Trump is now entertaining the possibility of a downturn shows he knows he can only deny, deny, deny so long. At some point, it’s going to either happen or not, and if it does he’s going to have to deal with it. If it happens after his administration has been shouting “All is well” like Kevin Bacon in “Animal House” for months, it will be all the worse politically.

But the second point is more important. Trump could continue to argue that the trade war isn’t to blame for all this, but he has apparently decided that that’s too implausible. He’s decided (correctly) that he’s going to have to own any kind of a downturn or recession that might happen, so he’s set about making the argument that it’s all temporary pain in the name of a long-term gain.

Which is actually an argument that makes some sense. Trade wars are wars of attrition, in which both sides apply pain on themselves through tariffs on imports, hoping it will force their economy to stop importing so much from the other. There may ultimately be some good that comes from that – either via a deal that’s more beneficial to the United States or via an economy that is less reliant on Chinese goods – but that doesn’t happen overnight. And when you’re in a battle to see who flinches first, things can get ugly rather quickly.

Telling the American people this could get ugly, of course, has never been Trump’s strategy. Instead, he’s said trade wars are “easy to win” and assured everyone that we’re winning. Now that signs suggest victory is hardly assured and that there could be plenty of casualties in the meantime, Trump is apparently adjusting his argument.

At least it’s more honest. But there’s a reason he has resisted making it: Because shared sacrifice isn’t exactly something voters love voting for. And neither are presidents who have recessions on their reelection CVs.